


1^^ 




3:!!Ki!i;i:!S|; 



CHARGES AGAINST H. SNOWDEN MARSHALL 



REPORT 

OF THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE TO THE 
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

•' * HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SIXTY-FOURTH CONGRESS 
First Session 

IN THE MATTER OF 

CHARGES AGAINST H. SNOWDEN MARSHALL 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT ATTORNEY 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT 

OF NEW YORK 




WASHINGTON 

fJOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

1916 



6*^ 



D. of D. 
AUG 7 1916 



K 

i- 

I 

OHAEGES AGAINST H. SNOWDEN MARSHALL. 



To the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives: 

Your subcommittee, appointed on the 1st day of February, 1916, 
to investigate the charges made by Representative Frank Buchanan 
against H. Snowden Marshall, United States district attorney for the 
southern district of >ew York, on the 19th day of June, 1916, filed a 
confidential report and with it the printed record containing the 
testimony and all exhibits fded. The report was referred back to 
the subcommittee as it was understood at the time that further 
testimony would be taken by the full committee. This testimony, 
for reasons which are fuUy understood, has not been taken, and as 
your subcommittee desires that there should be no further delay in 
the consideration of the case, begs leave to report as foUows: 

That it is impossible to ascertain the truth of the charges made 
which relate to the indictment of Representative Buchanan, and the 
indictment of Rae Tanzer, without a view of the minutes of the 
grand juries in these cases, and as these minutes have been denied to 
your subcommittee we feel that it is for you to determine as to the 
desirability of obtaining them. Should you decide to adopt the 
necessary legal proceedings in order to procure the minutes in ques- 
tion, we will be glad to give full consideration to the testimony as 
disclosed by them, and to submit our views upon the same; but if it 
should be decided not to procure the said minutes, but to determine 
the case upon the testimony already taken, in our judgment there is 
only one course that should be pursued, and that is to recommend 
to the House of Representatives that no further proceedings be had 
under H. Res. No. 90. 
Respectfully submitted. 

C. C. Carlin, 
Warren Gard, 
(Reserving the right to file herewith separate views.) 

John M. inelson, 
(Same reservation.) 



SEPARATE VIEWS OF HON. WAREEN GARD. 



In re the impeachment of H. Snowden Marshall, district attorney 
for the Southern District of New York. — Separate report of Mr. 
Gard, of subcommittee from the Committee on the Judiciary. 

On January 12, 1916, Frank Buchanan, a Representative in Con- 
gress from the State of Illinois, arose and presented in the House of 
Representatives amended and completed charges of impeachment 
against H. Snowden Marshall, United States district attorney for the 
Southern District of New York, impeaching him of high crimes and 
misdemeanors. 

Representative Buchanan had before, to wit, on December 14, 1915, 
presented certain charges of impeachment against said H. Snowden 
Marshall as said district attorney. 

The amended and completed charges were 40 in number, and the 
subcommittee to which was referred these charges for investigation, 
for its convenience of consideration and also for the proper separation 
of evidence thereon, divided the charges into groups, as follows: 

Group A, consisting of charges 1, 2, 3, and 4, which we designate as "conspiracies 
with persons and corporations." 

GrouTp B, consisting of charges 5, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14, 15, 23, and 24, matters relating to 
improper procuring of indictments. 

Group C, consisting of charges 9, 10, 11, and 12, relating to the shipment of war 
munitions and conspiracies with foreign governments. 

Group D, consisting of charge 16, the unlawful use of public funds in labor matters. 

Group E, consisting of charges 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22, attempting to improperly 
influence and improperly procure United States judges for the southern district of 
New York. 

Group F, consisting of charges 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, and 37, which relate to 
the cases of Rae Tanzer and others. 

Group G, consisting of charges 28, 34, 35, 36, 38, 39, and 40, which we designate as 
relating to his personal unfitness to hold the office of the United States district at- 
torney. 

The subcommittee held its sessions in the city of Washington and 
in the city of New York and examined 76 persons as witnesses, some 
of whom were recalled and some of whom furnished additional 
statements and exhibits after testifying. 

The evidence adduced will be commented upon under the fore- 
going grouping of charges, viz: 

Group A. 

1. I charge him with having conspired with persons, firms, and corporations, their 
agents and servants, to grant such persons, firms, and corporations the privilege of 
violating various criminal, neutrality, interstate commerce, or custom laws of the 
United States in the southern district of New York. 

2. I charge him with securing for persons or corporations great financial profit in 
consequence of the violation of the United States laws. 

3. I charge him with corruptly and collusively participating in such conspiracies. 

4. I charge him with corruptly neglecting and refusing to prosecute gross and 
notorious violations of various criminal, neutrality, custom revenue, and antitrust 
laws of the United States within said judicial district. 

5 



6 CHAEGES AGAINST H. SNOWDEN MARSHALL. 

The only evidence whicli was presented upon the four charges 
embodied in group A was certain evidence affecting transactions of 
importation of Julius Strauss and one Rosenthal at the port of New 
York, and after full consideration thereof I am unable to find any 
evidence which either actually or constructively associates H. 
Snowden Marshall as district attorney for the southern district of 
New York -with any wrongdoing in connection therewith, and there- 
fore it is my opinion that no evidence has been produced against 
said H. Snowden Marshall which would authorize his impeachment 
upon the charges in said group A. 

Group B. 

5. I charge him with corruptly inducing and procuring grand juries to return into 
the district coiut for the southern district of New York indictments charging crimes 
without there being evidence before said graiid jury which would in any degree justify 
the finding and filing of such indictments. 

6. I charge him with being guilty of oppression in corruptly procuring indictments 
from the grand jury in said district charging reputable citizens with crime, although 
there was no evidence before the grand jury which would in the least warrant such 
charges. 

7. I charge him with corruptly conspiring with other persons to spread broadcast 
throughout the United States maliciously false newspaper publications and reports, 
emanating as official statements and purporting to describe results of investigations 
conducted by said United States attorney and his assistants, with the object of destroy- 
ing friendly relations between the United States and one or more foreign Governments. 

8. I charge him ^vith unlawfully and feloniously abusing the legal process before 
the grand jury in said district of JSIew York, the Secret Service, and the Bureau of 
Investigation and Inquiry of the Department of Justice in furtherance of such 
conspiracy aforesaid. 

13. I charge him with having corruptly used the powers of his office for the purpose 
of slandering and libeling peaceable and law-abiding people to their great injury. 

14. I charge laim with having abetted, approved, acquiesced, and permitted unlaw- 
ful and oppressive misuse of subpoenas and other process before grand juries in said 
southern district of New York. 

15. I charge him with ha\'ing deprived law-abiding citizens of their legal rights, 
privileges, and immunities. 

23. I charge him with being a party to a conspiracy parti' ipatcd in by his assistant 
district attorneys and other officials connected with the, ad ministration of justice in 
the said southern district of New York, for the purpose of unlawfully manipulating 
and controlling the selection of grand and petit jurors in connection with cases in the 
courts of said district. 

24. I charge him with ha\'ing been guilty of acts by which the rights of the United 
States and that of individuals have been unlawfully prejudiced and the orderly and 
fair administration of justice defeated or obstructed in one or more instances. 

The evidence presented upon the charges assembled as group B 
related to the proceedings in the office of the United States district 
attorney for the southern district of New York during the incum- 
bency of said H. Snowden Marshall as said United States district 
attorney in the matter of procuring indictments against Repre- 
sentative Buchanan and others, in the matter of procuring indict- 
ments against Rae Tanzer, David Slade, Frank Safrord, and others, 
and in the matter of procuring indictments against Herman Oppen- 
heimer and Simon Kugel and others. 

Your subcommittee having called before it United States District 
Attorney Marshall in executive session, asked him if he would submit 
without process for the consideration of the committee the minutes of 
the grand jury which had returned the indictment against Buchanan 
and others or whether he woidd prefer to have process of this com- 
mittee issued therefor, and he advised the committee that he would 



CHAEGES AGAIKST H. SNOWDEN MARSHALL. 7 

prefer to communicate with the United States Attorney General, 
which he did, and he later announced through his office and that of 
the Attorney General of the United States that the Department of 
Justice deemed said minutes of said grand jury to be privileged and 
therefore decUned to submit them to the subcommittee for exami- 
nation. 

The subcommittee did not issue process to compel the production 
of these grand jury minutes. 

Thereupon the subcommittee called certain members of the grand 
jury who testified and whose testimony is to the effect that this 
grand jury first began the hearing of evidence against one Von Rin- 
telin, who was at that time charged with having endeavored to fraud- 
ulently procure a passport of the United States, and from the con- 
sideration of that charge other matters developed which resulted in 
the indictment of said Von Rintelin, Lamar, Monnett, Buchanan, 
Fowler, Schultheiss, Martin, and others. 

The subcommittee was diligent in seeking to ascertain whether or 
not the indictment against Representative Buchanan had been re- 
turned against him without evidence and because of proceedings 
instigated by him upon the floor of the House of Representatives 
against said H. Snowden Marshall as such United States district 
attorney, and its inquiries developed from the examination of the 
grand jurors that the name of Representative Buchanan was asso- 
ciated in the evidence which it was considering as early as the latter 
part of September, 1915, and that there had been other and additional 
evidence offered to said grand jury against said Frank Buchanan 
before December 14, 1915, the date upon which the first charges of 
impeachment were made in the House of Representatives by said 
Representative Buchanan against District Attorney Marshall. 

The evidence of grand jurors, the evidence of vSpecial Agent Bie- 
lasld from the Department of Justice of the United States, the evi- 
dence of Assistant United States District Attorney Sarfaty, was to 
the effect that before the indictment of Representative Buchanan 
was returned, there had been evidence submitted to the grand jury 
which associated said Frank Buchanan with the offense for which he 
was later charged by indictment and which in their opinions justified 
his indictment. 

The subcommittee, of course, could not pass upon the weight or the 
sufficiency of the evidence presented, but was called upon to deter- 
mine only whether evidence had been presented against Representa- 
tive Buchanan or whether the indictment had been returned solely 
because within his privilege as a Member of the House of Representa- 
tives he had preferred charges of impeachment against the district 
attorney for the southern district of New York. 

There was no evidence to show that said United States District 
Attorney Marshall had caused said Representative Buchanan to be 
indicted without evidence and because of his having made charges of 
impeachment against said United States District Attorney Marshall 
on December 14, 1915. 

In the matter of the indictments of Rae Tanzer, David Slade, Frank 
Safford, and others, the evidence discloses that one Rae Tanzer had 
through her attorneys, Slade & Slade, brought a suit against one 
James W. Osborne in the courts of New York County, charging seduc- 



8 CHARGES AGAINST H. SJSTOWDEN MARSHALL. 

tion and breach of promise of marriage, and that within a few days 
after said petition had been filed in said New York Comity Court, said 
Rae Tanzer was arrested upon- a charge of using the mails with intent 
to defraud, this charge being based upon a letter she had written to 
said James W. Osborne. 

After being arraigned before United States Commissioner Hough- 
ton, said Rae Tanzer was later indicated by a grand jury for the 
southern district of New York, and in later indictments two of her 
sisters were indicted, as were Frank Safford, a hotel clerk; David 
Slade, counsel for Rae Tanzer, and other persons. These last- 
mentioned matters may be properly associatecf with charges 25, 26, 
27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, and 37, as assembled in group F. It is suffi- 
cient to say that it is exceedingly ciuestionable that the United 
States commissioner for the southern district of New York and the 
grand jury for the court in said district should have properly assumed 
jurisdiction in any of these cases. More particular comment upon 
this matter wdll be made under the consideration of group F. 

The evidence submitted to us in the indictments against Herman 
Oppenheimer, Simon Kugel, and other persons shows that these 
named persons were indicted upon charges of unlawfully conceaUng 
the assets of certain bankrupts and upon charges of conspiracy to 
defeat justice in the trials and adjudications of bankrupt matters. 

The evidence of Oppenheimer, Kugel, and a number of other per- 
sons was taken, as was also the evidence of the clerk of the United 
States court for the southern district of New York, and the evidence 
of Samuel Hershenstein, an assistant United. States district attorney 
who had charge of said causes, and while the testimony of witnesses 
to some extent is in conflict, the consideration of the records of the 
United States court, of the indictments themselves, and of the dif- 
ferent pleas to said indictments filed by said defendants, shows that 
there was no oppression or corrupt procuring of indictments against 
these persons. 

Group C. 

9. I Charge him with having knowledge of the existence of circumstances from 
which knowledge is imputed to him that large sums of money have been expended 
for or on behalf of foreign Governments and of various purveyors and manufacturers 
of war munitions for the purpose of influencing the actions of said United States 
attorney in furtherance of a conspiracy. 

10. I charge him with having corruptlv neglected or refused to prosecute men who 
have made the port of New York, -within said judicial district, a military or naval 
base for foreign belligerent powers. 

11. I charge him \vith corruptly neglecting and refusing to prosecute violations of 
Federal statutes prohibiting the loading and shipment of explosives on ships carrying 
passengers within said judicial district. 

12. I charge him with corruptly neglecting and refusing to prosecute violations of 
the foreign-enlistment act and laws of the United States -within said district. 

There was no evidence produced and none offered to be produced 
before said subcommittee to substantiate the charges made under 
said group C. 

Group D. 

16. I charge him with aiding, abetting, and appro-\ang unlawful expenditures of 
public moneys in violation of the laws of the United States. 

There was no evidence produced and none offered to be produced 
to substantiate charge 16, which is herein denominated group D. 



CHARGES AGAIXST H. SNOWDEN MARStlALL. 9 

Group E. 

17. I charge him with being guilty of attempts by private solicitation of influencing 
the official actions and opinions of judges in the southern district of New York while 
in the performance of their judicial duties. 

18. I charge him with having used the powers of his office to cause and procure a 
discrimination in the assignment of judges to conduct trials in said district, so as to 
discriminate against one or more resident judges. 

19. I charge him with having used the powers of his office to procure or assist in 
the procurement of judges to be imported into the southern district of New York from 
other districts for the trial of cases in said district by falsely representing the condition 
of judicial business within said district. 

20. I charge him with being guilty of private solicitation with intent to influence 
the official acts and decisions of judges imported as aforesaid. 

21. I charge him with having attempted to corruptly control decisions and official 
actions of one or more of such imported judges. 

22. I charge him with having procured the assignment of one or more imported 
judges for the" conduct of trials in the said district for the purpose of preventing 
defendants in such cases from receiving a fair and impartial trial at the hands of 
resident judges. 

The evidence received by the subcommittee upon the chargjes 
assemble'd as group E fails to show any attempt of H. Snowden 
Marshall to influence the official actions and opinions of judges in 
the southern district of New York in the performance of their judicial 
duties, or to procure a discrimination in the assignment of judges or 
to discriminate against resident judges, or to procure judges to be 
imported into the southern district of > ew York, or of private solici- 
tation with intent to influence the official acts or decisions of judges, 
or of having attempted to corruptly control their decisions and 
official actions, or of having procured the assignment of certain 
judges. 

Group F. 

25. I change him v.ith havirg employed the powers of his office for the purpose 
of shielding and to pre\ ei t the exposure of unlawful and improper conduct of one 
James W. Osborne in relation to facts involved in civil litigation which was pending 
in the State court in the State of New York. 

26. I charge him with unlawiuUv protecting said Osborne and others from prose- 
cution for the violation of United States laws. 

27. I charge him with willfullv and corruptly refusing and neglecting to prosecute 
gross and notorious violations of the United States statutes committed by said James 
W. Osborne and others in the city and State of New York within said district. 

29. I charge him with having used the powers of his said office as United States 
district attorney to corruptly and willfully defame, slander, and injure the good name 
and professional standing of law-abiding citizens of the United States, to their great 
injury, fo-r the purpose of protecting the private individual interests of James W. 
Osborne. 

30. I charge him with having corruptly failed, neglected, and refused to prosecute 
persons who, while acting as witnesses for the United States in the trial of causes, 
committed the crime of perjurv and conspiracy in connection with the cases of the 
United States against Rae Tanzer, United States against Frank D. Saft'ord. and 
United States against Albert L. McCullough et al. 

31. I charge him with ha\dng used and employed the United States grand jury m 
the southern district of New York for the purpose of attempting to establish records 
which might be used in defense of James \\'. Osborne, H. Snowden Marshall. Roger B. 
Wood, and Samuel H. Hershenstein (the last two being United States district attor- 
neys under said H. Snowden Marshall), and not for the purpose of Investigation of 
violations of the United States laws. 

32. I charge him with corruptly and willfully failing to remove certain of his assist- 
ant district attornevs who destroyed documentary evidence material in the trial of a 
pending case in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New 
York. . . J . . , 

33. I charge him with corruptly and maliciously causing to be instituted criminal 
proceedings against Rae Tanzer and others for the purpose of protecting James "\\ . 



10 CHARGES AGAINST H. SNOWDEN MARSHALL. 

Osborne, a special United States district attorney and a personal intimate friend of 
said H. Snowden Marshall. 

37. I charge him with having corruptly and willfully withheld and failed to present 
before the grand jury material and important evidence in connection with alleged 
investigations instituted before said grand jury by said H. Snowden Marshall in 
relation to the cases of United States against Rae Tanzer and United States against 
Albert J. McCuUough et al., and others. 

The evidence upon this assembled group of charges was presented 
to us through the medium of the testimony of numerous witnesses 
and court records as disclosing the facts and procedure in the cases 
of the United States against Rae Tanzer, United States against 
Frank D. Safford, United States against Albert J. McCuUough'et al. 

Charges 26 and 27, alleging that said district attorney unlawfully 
protected the said Osborne and others from prosecution for violation 
of the United States laws, and with wiKully and corruptly refusing 
and neglecting to prosecute gross and notorious violations of the 
United States statutes committed by James W. Osborne and others 
are not sustained by the evidence. 

The evidence shows that Rae Tanzer was a resident of the county 
of New York, living in the city of New York with her two sisters. 

That she met a man in the city of New York who solicited acquain- 
tance with her and who visited her at her home and accompanied her 
to different places, tellmg her that his name was Oliver Osborne. 

That Rae Tanzer and the man whom she knew as Oliver Osborne 
together visited a hotel in Plainfield, N. J., registering as man and 
wife, and that at least upon one other occasion they registered as man 
and wife at a hotel in the city of New York, at each of said times and 
places she having had sexual intercourse with said Osborne. 

It is in evidence that Rae Tanzer later identified the man giving his 
name to her as Oliver Osborne as James W. Osborne. 

The evidence shows that after Rae Tanzer had been solicited to 
return certain letters in her possession allegedly written by Oliver 
Osborne, she consulted several attorneys, including Max Steurer, who 
testified before this committee, the several attorneys first being con- 
sulted by her refusing to act against James W. Osborne on account 
of intimate professional or personal relations with him. 

The testimony then is that Miss Tanzer visited the legal firm of 
Slade & Slade and that after her call upon them, a petition was pre- 
pared by said Slade & Slade in which Rae Tanzer was plaintiff and 
James W. Osborne was defendant, asking damages in the sum of 
S50,000 tlu-ough the court of > ew York County against said defendant 
for seduction and breach of promise of marriage. 

Within a very short time after this action was filed in the IS ew York 
County court, James W. Osborne filed an affidavit before a United 
States commissioner against Rae Tanzer charging her with using the 
mails with intent to unlawfully defraud James W. Osborne. 

Rae Tanzer was arrested by the authorities of the United States on 
this charge, was placed in jail, afterwards given a hearing before 
United States Commissioner Houghton, then bound over to appear 
before the grand jury, and was later indicted by said grand jury. 

Following the procedure against Rae Tanzer, indictments were 
returned by the grand jury, for the southern district of New York 
against Frank D. Safford, Albert J. McCullough, David Slade, and 
other persons. 



CHARGES AGAINST H, SNOWDEN MARSHALL. 11 

The only one of these cases which was fully tried was the case 
against Frank D. Safford, who was a clerk in the hotel at Plainficld at 
which it was alleged James W. Oshorne and Rae Tanzcr registered as 
man and wife, and who testified in identification of James W. Osborne, 
the jury in that case having found said Frank SafFord guilty, which 
conviction has only lately been reversed by the court of appeals for 
manifest errors in the admission and rejection of evidence in the trial 
court to the prejudice of the defendant. 

The trial of Rae Tanzer on a charge of perjury has only recently 
been concluded, in which trial there was a disagreement of the jury. 

Rae Tanzer has never been brought to trial upon the charge for 
which she was originally indicted. 

It is now charged by these proceedings in impeachment that said 
H. Snowden Marshall employed the powers of his office for the pur- 
pose of shielding and preventing the exposure of unlawful and 
improper conduct of one James W. Osborne in relation to facts 
involved in civil litigation which was pending in the State court in 
the State of New York. Other charges present in different wording 
certain other conditions affecting this same litigation, but the gist 
of the charge and of all charges connected therewith is contained in 
said charge No. 25. 

While there has been no certain oral testimony directly showing the 
interest of the office of the United States district attorney in favor of 
James W. Osborne in the matter of the civil litigation against him, 
and the subsequent litigation in the criminal court for the southern 
district of New York, it is my opinion that the county courts of New 
York would have furnished to the said James W. Osborne all the 
procedure necessary to thoroughly bring before the proper court any 
contention, either civil or criminal, he might desire to make in 
answer to the petition filed against him by Rae Tanzer for seduction 
and breach of promise of marriage. 

There seems to me to be no good reason why these criminal cases 
were instituted and prosecuted in the United States courts. 

The very first procedure against one of the persons defendant in 
these causes, Frank D. Safford, was in the shape of an affidavit by 
one Mayhew, a post-office inspector, to which the testimony of Hon. 
Martin Littleton, formerly a Representative in the Congress of the 
United States from the State of New York, is as follows : 

Mayhew admitted he made a positive affidavit as to a state of facts which he did not 
know of and which, in my opinion, under the law of the State of New York amounted 
to false swearing or perjury, and he stated when crowded on the question as to why 
he did it that he was directed to do so by Mr. Roger Wood, assistant district attorney. 

The question of these indictments and trials in the Federal court 
of the State of New York is best explained in the language of Mr. 
Littleton when he further said as a witness : 

I had thought that the assumption of jurisdiction in these cases by the Federal 
authorities, the assumption of jurisdiction to prosecute in the first instance Rae Tanzer 
in the Federal coiut as and for sending a letter through the mails which was part of 
a scheme devised to defraud, was an improper assumption of jurisdiction. 1 think 
that the case never ought to have been in that court. I will not say there can not be 
two opinions about it, but I will say that I think you will search the records of the 
court in vain to find where such jurisdiction has been assumed or asserted in regard 
to a similar state of facts. After that was done, of course the indictment of Safford, 
the indictment of Tanzer and Tanzer's sisters, the indictment of the Slades and 
McCullough, all rested upon the single act of fixing the jurisdiction by the complainant 
before Commissioner Houghton, for without that of course there would have been no 



12 CHARGES AGAIiSrST H. SI^OWDElsr MARSHALL. 

testimony given in the Federal case and there would have been no interference or 
alleged interference with the Federal courts; none of these things could have been 
brought out or none of these indictments could have been returned in the Federal 
court. I think the original and vital mistake or wrong or wrongful assumption of 
jurisdiction was in assuming to try and prosecute her under a Federal statute, when 
obviously if she was what she was claimed to be and her lawyers were what was claimed 
to be there was a perfectly plain remedy in the State courts. 

These cases were conducted principally by Roger B. Wood, an 
assistant in the office of the district attorney, Marshall, with the 
latter's full sanction and approval, and without desiring to make 
intemperate or unauthorized comment upon the conduct of the 
United States district attorney or his assistants in these cases, it does 
appear to ma. that the arrest and prosecution of the persons arrested 
and indicted in the United States courts in these cases, a.ll of which 
grew out of the arrest of Rae Tanzer on a charge of sending a letter 
through the mails to James W. Osborne with intent to unlawfully 
defraud, were not cases properly to have been brought in the courts 
of the United States and their having been brought in said courts 
was a wrenching of the jurisdiction thereof. 

Group G. 

28. I charge him v, ith ha^ing prostituted the office of United States district attorney 
for the southern district of New York. 

34. I charge him \vith corruptly and willfully failing and refusing to present to the 
court the trial of cases material and important evidence and in concealing or assisting 
and acquiesung in the concealment or destruction of material and important evidence 
relating to pending cases in the United States district court for the southern district 
of New York. 

35. I charge him with being corrupt, grossly negligent, and unfit to retain the office 
as United States district attorney for the southern district of New York. 

33. I charge him with having willfully and persistently violated the laws of the 
United States in connection with the performance by him of the duties of such United 
States district attorney for said southern district of New York. 

38. I charge him with ha^^ng corruptly and willfully refused and neglected to take 
cognizance of unla'.\ ful conduct of his assistant district attorneys in connection with 
the performance by them of official duties as such assistant district attorneys. 

39. I charge him with corruptly participating in or acquieei"ing to the presentation 
to the court in trial of cases in the southern district of New York of alleged evidence 
which he knew to be untrue and manufactured, or in the manufacture of and attempt 
to manufacture sui^h alleged e^'idence. 

40. I charge him v ith produi ing v, illful injury and vrong to litigants in said dis- 
trict court and to < itizens of the United States by his unla\\ ful and improper conduct. 

These charges allege in substance that said H. Snowden Marshall 
has been corrupt and grossly negligent in the conduct of his office as 
district attorney and is personall}^ unfit to retain said office. 

Charge 34 particularly alleges his assisting and acquiescing in the 
concealment or destruction of material and important evidence relat- 
ing to pending cases in the United States District Court for the South- 
ern District of New York, and the evidence upon this was the evidence 
pertaining to one of the cases alleging concealment of the effects of a 
bankrupt, and while there was some testimony as to one of the assistant 
district attorneys having sent for a witness and having asked for the 
production of certain papers and one paper having been produced to 
him, which he examined, he did tear it up, but this act of tearing up 
was with the consent of the witness appearing and was not material, 
inasmuch as it was but a copy, the original still remaining in the 
hands of the witness. 

There is no evidence to sustain the charges that H. Snowden 
Marshall is personally unfit to be United States district attorney for 



CHARGES AGAINST H. SNOWDEN MAKSUALL. 13 

the southern district of New York. On the contrary, all of the tes- 
timony which has been given to the committee, this being the testi- 
mony of leading lawyers of the New York bar, the testimony of 
Federal judges, and, in fact, nearly all the testimony which this 
committee has received has shown to the committee that Mr. Mar- 
shall is a man of good character, of excellent professional standing, 
and one who apparently in the past has had high regard for the duties 
of his position and has attempted to carry out these duties honestly 
and impartially and to the best of his skill and ability. 

In this connection it is but fair to the district attorney himself to 
say that almost all of the criticism directed by witnesses against the 
office of the district attorney has been directed against the conduct 
of certain of the assistants in his office. 

We were not called upon to investigate the acts and conduct of 
assistants in the office of the United States district attorney for the 
southern district of New York except in so far as they directly af- 
fected the charges against the district attorney himself, and there- 
fore I can only say that some of the acts complained of against the 
assistant district attorneys are apparently acts which had their 
origin in improper appreciation of legal ethics and mistaken zeal. 

There was evidence offered concerning certain of the methods 
and procedure of the office of the United States district attorney 
for the southern district of New York, but as he is a subordinate 
under the Attorney General of the United States and his office sub- 
ject to investigation by the Attorney General, I do not feel inclined 
to discuss this evidence here, for none of the methods and procedure 
which may be objectionable constitute grounds for impeachment of 
this district attorney. 

The subcommittee had in mind the examination in executive 
session of the grand jury minutes hereinbefore referred to for the 
reason that it felt that it could thus best obtain the truth concern- 
ing the charges of impeachment made that indictments had been 
returned in said jurisdiction without evidence; and it was the inten- 
tion of this subcommittee to hold the evidence of said minutes in 
the strictest confidence. 

As this evidence was not obtained by the subcommittee for the 
reason before stated, the subcommittee makes a special report of this 
fact to the full committee. 

With these minutes refused, the subcommittee, in what it deemed 
its proper scope of investigation, examined the foreman of the grand 
jury and certain others of the grand jurors who had returned the 
indictments agamst Von Rintelin, Lamar, Monnett, Buchanan, 
Schultheiss, and Martin, and some persons who had appeared before 
said grand jury as witnesses. 

Our investigation has shown there was some evidence presented in 
each of the cases m which indictments were found, which cases were 
brought immediately to our attention by the charges of impeachment 
made, and unless the full Judiciary Committee desu-es further pro- 
cedure to procure all the evidence submitted to said grand juries in 
said cases, this to be evidenced by the complete stenographic notes of 
said proce?dings, it is my recommendation that no further proceedings 
be had under House Resolution No. 90. 

Warren Gard, 

Of Su hcom mittee . 



SEPARATE VIEWS BY HON. JOHN M. NELSON. 



To the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives: 

The undersigned, a member of the subcommittee of the Committee 
on the Judiciary, appointed to investigate the impeachment charges 
of Representative Frank Buchanan against H. Snowden Marshall, 
district attorney for the southern district of New York, respectfully 
submits the following views : 

The undersigned is convinced, upon the evidence submitted, 
that H. Snowden Marshall is not a fit person to hold the office of 
district attorney for the southern district of New York. However, 
if the Committee on the Judiciary or the House shall insist upon a 
recommendation by the subcommittee at this time, either for or 
against the impeachment of Mr. Marshall upon these charges, without 
authorizing the production of the grand jury minutes disclosing how 
indictments were found against Representative Buchanan and others, 
Rae Tanzer, her attorneys and witnesses, I am constrained reluctantly 
to concur in the recommendation of the subcommittee that further 
proceedings under Resolution No. 90 be discontinued. 

The investigation, notwithstanding it has extended over a period 
of months, has been necessarily unsatisfactory and incomplete. Not 
only has the committee been refused permission by the district attor- 
ney, acting under the direction of the Attorney General, to inspect the 
grand jury minutes in these cases, but has been subjected to the 
most severe attacks on the part of Mr. Marshall himself and news- 
papers doubtless inspired by him, which has greatly handicapped the 
official discharge of our duties. Under these restricting circumstances 
the committee confined its eft'orts to the taking of testimony of wit- 
nesses suggested by the impeaching Member, Mr. Buchanan, who has 
from the beginning protested that this was most unfair to him. He 
has properly insisted that it was his duty merely to furnish prima 
facie proof, and that the committee should make an independent 
investigation of the various charges presented by him against this 
district attorney. The committee, however, found itself surrounded 
by a stone wall of difficulties. On every hand the investigation found 
itself confronted with cases being tried in the courts, and the com- 
mittee was reluctant to take any steps to procure evidence that 
would in any way interfere with their trial. 

The undersigned has, therefore, been constrained to come to the 
conclusion that either the grand jury minutes in the Buchanan and 
Rae Tanzer cases should be produced by judicial process, or the 
investigation should be postponed until after the trial of these pend- 
ing cases. While there is evidence before the committee which is 
conclusive of the fact that Mr. Marshall should be removed from the 
office of district attorney, it is my best judgment that the case should 
not be presented to the Senate by the House until all the facts that 

14 



CHARGES AGAINST H. SNOWDEX MARSHALL. 15 

are readily available have been developed, which under the circum- 
stances described has not been found possible. 

The large purpose of any impeachment proceeding is not punish- 
ment of any individual, but the removal of any civil officer, invested 
temporarily with power, who deprives citizens of rights or jeopardizes 
their liberty, and, therefore, is a menace to our republican form of 
government. 

The Constitution denounces impeachable offenses under the terms 
of "treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors." 
It is not contended in the charges of impeachment against Mr. Mar- 
shall that he has been guilty of either treason, bribery, or crime. 
His offenses, therefore, are covered, if at all, by the word "misde- 
meanors." From the beginning the precedents show that attorneys 
for civil officers on trial in the Senate have insisted that the language 
of the Constitution covered only indictable offenses, and the Senate, 
with possibly one or two exceptions, has seemed to incline toward 
that view. The House, however, through its managers, has invari- 
ably insisted that impeachment is a "means of removing men from 
office whose misconduct imperils the public safety and renders them 
unfit to occupy official positions." Believing that this is a sensible 
and just interpretation of the intent of the framers of the Constitu- 
tion, and that it is supported by the best American text writers on 
the Constitution, the undersigned has adopted that standard by 
which to measure the official conduct of Mr. Marshall as district 
attorney. Temperamentally he is neither calm, dispassionate, nor 
judicial. He is a person of inordinate self-esteem, keenly sensitive to 
criticism, and passionately vengeful. Within the brief period that 
he has acted as district attorney he has wielded the tremendous 
power of his office, not to do impartial justice, but to achieve his 
object or to carry out the wishes of others intrenched in power. He 
is a "respecter of persons" and does not hesitate to use unjustifiable 
means to befriend whom he would befriend and to destroy whom he 
would destroy. As a consequence of his misuse of power, the rights 
of American citizens have been abridged, their reputations ruthlessly 
ruined, and their liberties jeopardized without just cause. 

Respectfully submitted. 

John M. Nelson. 



Statement of Facts Accompanying Views of Mr. Nelson. 

Your subcommittee agreed upon the following grouping of charges: 

Group A consists of charges 1, 2, 3, and 4, as they appear in the printed record, 
which we designate as "conspiracy with persons and corporations." 

Group B consists of charges 5, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14, 15, 23, and 24. '-matters relating to 
improper procuring of indictments." 

Group C consists'of charges 9, 10, 11, and 12, "relating to the shipment of war muni- 
tions, and conspiracies with foreign GoA-ernments." 

Group D consists of charge 16, "unlawful use of public funds in labor matters." 

Group E consists of charges 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22. -'attempting to improperly 
influence and improperly procure judges for the southern distri<^t of New York." 

Group F consists of charges 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32. 33, and 37. which -'relate to 
what is known as the case of Rae Tanzer, and improper conduc t v iih James W. Osborne 



in improperly using the power of his office." 
Group G consists" of charges 28, 34, 35, 36, ; 



roup G consists" of charges 28, 34, 35, 36, 38, 39, and 40, "relating to his personal 
unfitness." 



16 CHARGES AGAIXST H. SNOWDEX MARSHALL, 

The subcommittee did not have before it evidence tending directly 
to sustain charges contained in the foregoing subdivisions, except 
charges 5 and 6 in group B, charges contained in group F, and charges 
34 and 38 contained in Group G. Charges 5 and 6 in group B are 
as follows : 

No. 5. I charge him with corruptly inducing and prociuing grand juiies to retiu'n 
into the District Court for the Southern District of New York of indictments charging 
crimes \vithout there being evidence before said grand jury which would in any degree 
justify the finding and filing of such indictments. 

No. 6. I charge him with being guilty of oppression in corruptly prociu-ing indict- 
ments from the grand jiuy in said district charging reputable citizens with crime, 
although there was no evidence before the grand jury which would in the least warrant 
such charges. 

These charges were intended to cover the indictment found against 
Representative Buchanan, with others, chargmg them wdth con- 
spiracy to restrain trade. Kjiowing that the House was very much 
concerned to ascertain whether a Member had been questioned in 
another place for utterances of his on the floor of the House, the 
undersigned, as a member of the subcommittee, has given careful 
consideration to all the evidence, so far as it rebates to the finding of 
this mdictment, and has concluded that whi'e there is evidence before 
the committee to show that testimony was taken before the grand 
jury relating to the indictment and the persons against whom it was 
found, ranging over a period of several months prior to the indict- 
ment, yet there was no testimony before the subcommittee to show 
either the relevancy of the evidence before the grand jury or the 
sufficiency thereof. 

In reference to Representative Buchanan's indictment, attention 
is directed to these significant facts: 

(a) The Department of Justice has failed to prosecute the Metro- 
politan Tobacco Co., although its own investigator, Mr. Marshall's 
assistant, Mr. Thompson, found and reported it had and was con- 
tinuing to violate the antitrust law. (See also testimony of Ochs, 
Locher, and Wolf.) Yet it did indict a Member of Congress and 
others of the peace council, opposing the sale of munitions of war and 
the program of preparedness by means of speeches and literature, 
under the antitrust law. 

(6) The indictment itself is vague and indefuiite, stating no specific 
fact either as to manufacturers, articles restrained, or places where 
strikes have been incited. 

(c) The testimony of grand jurors discloses (1) that Mr. Bu- 
chanan's name was handed in by the district attorney with others, 
and that he was indicted with them in a "bunch" ; (2) that no name 
was added b}" the grand jury and no name taken away; (3) that Rep- 
resentative Buchanan as president and Mr. Taylor as his successor 
were indicted, but the secretary and treasurer and other officers were 
not; (4) that Mr. Marshall summed up the law, and that his assistant, 
Mr. Sarfaty, summed up the evidence; (5) that this was unusual 
unless requested by the jury; and (6) that the jurors discussed in 
the grand jury the impeachment of Mr. Marshall by Representative 
Buchanan on the floor of the House. 

(d) Henry A. Wise, former district attorney, testified that the 
grand jury is "worth a 2-cent piece" ; in other words, that it is merely 
a rubber stamp or cash register manipulated by the district attorney. 



CHARGES AGAIKST H. SNOWDEN MARSHALL. 17 

In short, with reference to the mdictment of Mr. Buchanan, all the 
surrounding circumstances lead to the conviction that the production 
of the grand jury minutes so strenuously denied the subcommittee, 
or the trial of this case, will disclose that he is the victim of hostile 
political and financial interests who feared the campaign begun by 
the Peace Council, through labor organizations, against the propa- 
ganda of preparedness and the sale of war materials and supplies to 
any of the nations now engaged in the European conflict. 

Group F contains nine specific charges, all practically included in 
No. 25, which is as follows: 

No. 25. I charge him with having employed the powers of hia office for the purpose 
of shielding and to prevent the exposure of unlawful and improper conduct of one 
James W. Osborne in relation to facts involved in civil litigation, which was pending 
in the State court in the State of New York. 

This charge is intended to cover Mr. Marshall's use of the power of 
his office to assist his associate and friend, Mr. James W. Osborne, 
charged with seduction and breach of promise in a civil suit. In 
order that his favoritism may be seen in its proper proportion, all 
that is necessary is to contrast Mr. Marshall's action in the Rae Tanzer 
case with his action in the New York Tribune case. It is to be noted 
that in each case he deals with section 215, Crimmal Code, which 
prohibits schemes or artifices to defraud by the use of the mails. 

THE RAE TANZER CASE. 

A virtuous young Jewess, Rae Tanzer, living with her two sisters, 
through a flirtation met with a person giving his name as "Oliver 
Osborne," some where on the streets of the city of New York, and 
subsequently went with him to Plainfield, N. J., where the injuries 
complained of occurred. Their relations continued for some time 
afterwards. Before bringing a civil suit, she claims to have dis- 
covered that Oliver Osborne was James W. Osborne, and she ad- 
dressed him the following letter: 

Sunday, December 27, 1914. 
Mr. James W. Osborne, Esq., 

115 Broadivay, City. 

Dear Oliver: Trying to change your mind? It's too late. You have ruined 
my life, and I hold you to your promises. 

I have kept this trouble to myself, but can't stand it any longer; therefore I'll 
have to seek help through other soiu'ces. I have waited this while thinking you would 
be reasonable and consider what this means to me. 

I want no publicity, for there's still a little pride left in me, although you have 
taken most out of me. jMy meeting you Christmas eve was by chance. Taken by 
surprise, weren't you? Was as near to you on several other occasions before then, 
but didn't want to be bold. Will tell you when and how sometime. 

Did I get the letter you never sent me? Well, I still have the ones you sent me 
when you were the California ranchman, which I kept, not for a purpose, but because 
I thought you were just the grandest man. and I loved you with a heart that wasn't 
meant for a man like you to trifle with. You know it wasn't for the diamonds (that 
you are still having fixed for me) or your money. I was always in the habit of dress- 
ing nicely, but things weren't as nice with us lately. I was content. Did you ever 
hear me complain? In fact, I tried to hide everything until everything was in better 
shape. 

You know I was a good girl until I met you, Init I was so infatuated with you from 
the start that I lost my head entirely and didn't stop to reason, but always knew you 
would protect me, for I didn't think a man of your reputation would act otherwise; 
but I hope my doubt is all a misunderstanding on my part, for your sake. 

51979—16 2 



18 CHAEGES AGAIlSrST H. SNOWDEN MARSHALL. 

Don't let me confide in anyone or do anyt'dng you wouldn't like me to do, for 1 
haven't as yet, but will have to if you won't protect me. 1 knew you weren't going 
to meet me Christmas eve, but I went down anyhow. That all added to my misery. 
Will wait to hear from you until Saturday next, and then I shall not write you again. 

Rae. 
There I stood waiting at the circle. 

Later Miss Tanzer employed counsel and a civil suit was brought 
in the State courts to recover damages on the 16th day of March, 
1915. Three days after the beginning of the civil suit, to wit, the 
19th of March, 1915, she was arrested upon a warrant sworn out by 
James W. Osborne before the United States district commissioner, 
charging her for using the mails for the purpose of defrauding, etc., 
by the mailing of the above letter. Subsequentl.y, her attorneys, 
their investigator, her two sisters, and other witnesses were indicted, 
charged with various violations of the Federal law. Miss Tanzer 
remained in the Tombs until she could secure bail. This proceeding 
residted in the discontinuance of the civil suit. She testified before 
the subcommittee that she was persuaded to take this step because 
of pressure brought to bear upon her then counsel and bondsman, 
Mr. Spielberg, whom the undersigned believes to be a tool of James 
W. Osborne. This tool persuaded here to make a "recantation," 
which she did in part, but afterwards repudiated on the stand, and 
m.ade a stipulation, which is as follows: 

Miss Rae Tanzer: I am satisfied to attempt to help you out of the difficulty you 
got yourself into, because I believe that you were honest all the way through. 

I am likewise satisfied that your attorneys, Slade & Slade, and the other witnesses 
were honestly mistaken. I will not tell anything you told me unless I have the 
absolute assm-ance of the authorities that nobody connected with your case will be 
hurt in any way. 

Harold Spielberg. 

Notwithstanding this stipulation, she has been prosecuted, not for 
using the mails to defraud, which has been pending for nearly a year 
and a lialf, but for perjury, with the result that the jury disagreed. 
From all the facts and circumstances in evidence it is clear to the 
undersigned that in this case Mr. Marshall came to the rescue of his 
friend Osborne, who was in danger not only of a civil suit, but of 
prosecution under the Mann Act, and by ''wrenching jurisdiction" 
Ii-om State court he has been ruthless in depriving Miss Tanzer of her 
rights, her attorneys and witnesses of their reputations, and all parties 
to her suit have had their liberties jeopardized in the most flagrant 
manner. Indeed, the treatment accorded this young woman, the 
elerk of the hotel, Mr. Saflord, and the other witnesses is cruel and 
heartless beyond description. 

THE NEW YORK TRIBUNE CASE. 

Contrasting Mr. Marshall's action in the Tanzer case with his action 
in the New York Tribune case, the facts in evidence show that the 
parties interested were a real estate promoter, Mr. Mayo, and the New 
York Tribune Co. The scheme for which the mails were being used 
was to advertise that every person subscribing to the Tribune for 
six months would be permitted to buy a lot in New Jersey for $19.60. 
The evidence disclosed the fact that the land was worth not to exceed 



CHAEGES AGAINST H. SNOWDEN MARSHALL. 19 

$6 per acre, but was being sold at the rate of -1320 per acre. It con- 
sisted of scrub oak land and sand. This ''summer resort," as it was 
designated, had neither sewers, lights, sidewalks, nor other improve- 
ments. The estimated profit out of the scheme is about three- 
quarters million dollars. This swindle was investigated by a reputable 
newspaper man, who reported the facts to Mr. Marshall. Mr. Mar- 
shall secured the services of two post-office inspectors, McQuillan and 
Schaeffer, who after five or six weeks of investigation reported the 
scheme a swindle and a plain case of violation of law. Now, what 
was done? Although the grand jury was in session, it was not 
brought to its attention. Although Mr. Watson urged that subpoenas 
be issued to bring persons before the grand jury, Mr. Marshall refused 
to do so. At the end of the investigation, having before him the 
reports of the inspectors, he wrote his friend Henry A. Wise, attor- 
ney for the Tribune Co., that there would be no prosecution. To 
Mr. Watson he gave the explanation that he wanted "to let Henry 
collect his fee and get away on his vacation." Nearly a year has gone 
by, and still no action has been taken, nor has the case been pre- 
sented to the grand jury. 

KEEN & BARD CASE. 

Contrast again Mr. Marshall's treatment of the Tribune Co. with 
his treatment of Keen & Bard, with reference to this same section 
215 of the Criminal Code. In the latter case the testimony shows 
that Roger B. Wood, assistant to Mr. Marshall, acting as attorney for 
the Pike's Peak Film Co. and the Pike's Peak Photo-Play Co., sought 
to recover from Messrs. Keen & Bard certain films. The said 
Roger B. Wood appeared at the place of busmess of Mr. Keen and 
demanded the return of the films. According to the testimony of 
Mr. Keen, the conduct of Mr. Wood was boisterous and threatening. 
He declared that he was a United States district attorney. Some 
months afterwards a warrant was sworn out through the agency of 
Mr. Marshall's office, before the United States district commissioner, 
charging Messrs. Keen & Bard with having used the mails for purposes 
of defrauding, etc. Bard was arrested late in the afternoon and had 
to spend the night in the Tombs. Keen dodged the process until 
Monday, and then appeared with his bondsman. Both were released 
on bail. The bail demanded was S10,000, and this excessive sum was 
asked, according to testimony, at Mr. Wood's request, acting as 
assistant district attorney. Mr. Henry A. Wise, former district 
attorney and friend of Mr. Marshall's, appeared as their attorney. 
Subsequently in an interview with the district attorney Mr. Wise 
brought Mr. Marshall's attention to the facts in the case as not being 
in violation of any United State statute. By reason of Mr. Wood's 
private interest in the matter, Mr. Marshall referred the decision of 
the case to Mr. William L. Wemple as referee, to determine whether 
there has been any violation of Federal law. Mr. Wemple decided 
in the negative. Notwithstanding, the case was referred to the 
district attorney's office of the county of New York and again, after 
investigation, it was found that these gentlemen had violated no law. 



20 CHARGES AGAIXST H. SXOWBEX MAKSnALL. 

THE SLADE & SLADE CASE. 

Contrast again the treatment accorded James W. Osborne, an 
attorney, with the treatment accorded David and Maxwell Slade, as 
attorneys. Although James W. Osborne is charged by Rae Tanzer 
with conduct which was a clear violation of the Mann Act, yet Mr, 
Marshall not only does not prosecute him, but rushes to his defense 
in the civil suit for seduction and breach of promise. He is per- 
suaded by Mr. Osborne to proceed in the Federal courts against Rae 
Tanzer tjiree daA^s after she had started her civil suit in the State 
court, and her attorneys had agreed to all Mr. Osborne's requests for 
bill of particulars and speedy trial. Obviously, if there was any 
offense at. all committed by Miss Tanzer it was a case of blackmail 
and, .therefore, wholly within the jurisdiction of the State courts. 
Although a pretended Oliver Osborne appeared one day at the home 
of James W. Osborne, he immediately disappeared and has never 
been found. In fact, as testified to by Mr. Le Gendre, the newspaper 
men have had great sport at the expense of Mr. Marshall over the 
alleged Oliver Osborne. Slade & Slade, who were attorneys for 
Rae Tanzer in the civil suit, were made the victims of all the oppres- 
sive power of Mr. Marshall's office, because they ventured to start 
this civil suit against his friend Osborne. They have been indicted, 
charged with conspiracy to obstruct justice. Two overt acts have 
been set forth: The one being that Mr. Slade whispered to his own 
client m open court, "Here he comes," meaning James W. Osborne. 
A most ridiculous suggestion. Think of an attorney being indicted 
for obstructmg justice in wliispering to his own client in open court. 
But even this charge is denied by witnesses and it is by no means 
certain that even this whispering occurred. 

The other charge relates to the preparation of an alleged photograph 
of Rae Tanzer and James W. Osborne taken together. The photogra- 
pher of the New York World testified that the scheme was proposed 
by Mr. Osbonie himself in the presence of the district attorney, his 
assistants, Wood and Hershenstein, and a Government inspector. 
The purpose was to trap, if possible, the Slades into the use of this 
composite photograph, as a part of their evidence. The testimony 
shows that the Slades did not suggest it, and that the photographer 
never reported the matter to them. He thought it too ridiculous 
to attempt. Yet these attorneys have been indicted for obstructing 
justice, and this is one of the counts in the indictment. The under- 
signed has carefully read the evidence in the trial of Slade and Slade, 
which terminated abruptly, because the sitting judge became ill. 
From beginning to end it is a travesty upon justice. The whole case 
was tried to vindicate James W. Osborne in the public mind, and to 
prove, if possible, that he was not the Oliver Osborne. The record, 
consisting of 904 pages, discloses that not a page contains any effort 
to prove either of these overt acts on the part of Slade and Slade. 
Not a reference was made in the trial to the use of the composite 
photograph. 

THE SAFFORD CASE. 

Finally, contrast Mr. Marshall's conduct with reference to the 
crime of perjury. Mr. Frank J. Safford was a clerk in the hotel at 
which ''Oliver Osborne" and Rae Tanzer registered. He appeared 



CHARGES AGAINST H. SNOWDEN MARSHALL. 21 

before the commissioner as an unwilling witness and identified James 
W. Osborne as Oliver Osborne. For so doing Mr. Marshall has had 
him indicted and tried for perjury. The undersigned has carefully- 
read the record in the Safford case and again wishes to state that it is 
a rank travesty upon justice. The case from beginning to end was 
manifestly conducted with the sole purpose of clearing James W. 
Osborne, if possible, in the public mind from the charge of being the 
Oliver Osborne who seduced Rae Tanzer. Attention is also directed 
to the fact that the judge in that case was exceedingly unfair, admit- 
ting evidence that had no place in the case, and in his instructions 
to the jury argued the case as Mr. Osborne's attorney, going outside 
of the record to convince the jury that James W. Osborne was not 
Oliver Osborne. ' The jury found. Safford guilty but recommended 
him to the clemency of the court. Subsequently, upon appeal, the 
decision was reversed, the court holding the defendant had a right to 
be tried according to the rules of law and evidence. 

In contrast with the treatment of Mr. Safford, who testified in a 
case, it is interesting to note that the first procedure against him was 
an affidavit by one Mayhew, a post-office inspector, who admitted 
upon the stand that he had no knowledge whatever of the facts to 
which he made an affidavit, and when asked why he made it replied 
that he was directed to do so by Mr. Roger B. Wood, assistant dis- 
trict attorney, and Mr. Marshall has disclosed the fact that he had full 
knowledge of this case and approves of everything his assistants have 
done in court. 

ABUSE OF AGENCIES OF JUSTICE. 

In order to condense this statement it is necessary to refer to these 
matters without going into detail. There is neither time nor space to 
refer to the testimony as to the misuse of power on the part of the dis- 
trict attorney in the use he makes of the grand jury, of subpoenas, and 
of indictments for conspiracy. The use of these agencies of justice by 
this district attorney's office has created a state of terror in this juris- 
diction. While it can not be said that Mr. Marshall is the author of 
this abuse of power in the use of these agencies of justice, it is in evi- 
dence that he has not restrained but rather encouraged the extension 
of their abuse. 

Respectfully submitted. 

John M. Nelson. 



X 



